Well, since no one else said it, I will:
GO AMERICA NUMBA-1!!!!
Remember Richard Reid?
-
Spazmo
- Haha you're still not there yet
- Posts: 3590
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 4:17 am
- Location: Monkey Island
- Contact:
I just thought the jury was supposed to hand out verdicts, not the judge. I thought the judge was supposed to be a moderator of sorts between the prosecution and defense.
But anyways, I apologise for my right-over-your-heads comment. The rest of the world has developed a eye-rolling reflex to exuberant American patriotism and bravado.
But anyways, I apologise for my right-over-your-heads comment. The rest of the world has developed a eye-rolling reflex to exuberant American patriotism and bravado.
Dude, you read me wrong. Or you just don't care.
What I'm trying to say is that a judge shouldn't be imposing his political beliefs in a court, espeically during the verdict. He's supposed to be impartial to the plaintiff and the defendant. Now try sticking up for him.
What I'm trying to say is that a judge shouldn't be imposing his political beliefs in a court, espeically during the verdict. He's supposed to be impartial to the plaintiff and the defendant. Now try sticking up for him.
ExtremeRyno wrote:I don't really represent the views that I've written here in this thread... I just like to type.
I don't see how one's political beliefs, no matter what side of the spectrum, influences his impartiality. I've had to resolve several disputes during the course of my term in the military, and on many occassions I was friends with the guys I viewed was wrong. If you're a professional, your personal beliefs won't influence your decions, though you can still have your personal beliefs and express them. The Judge in this case was presiding over a criminal trial, he doesn't necessarily get to decide whether or not Reid is guilty, so his speech plays virtually no role in the verdict. The Judge did comment upon the flag several times, but what's wrong with that? It's the laws and ideals of the Constitution and the symbolism of the flag that he's sworn to uphold. A Judge routinely gives a "scolding" or a lesson to the guilty party after a verdict, in this case it was about terrorism. Could he have said "Terrorism is bad Mr. Reid, the jury has found you guilty"? Yeah, he could have. But he wanted to give Reid a lesson on why his terrorist logic of doing things was wrong. Whether or not that lesson was learned by Reid we don't know. But I don't necessarily see anything blatantly wrong with his speech since it was given once the verdict was decided.Ozrat wrote:Dude, you read me wrong. Or you just don't care.
What I'm trying to say is that a judge shouldn't be imposing his political beliefs in a court, espeically during the verdict. He's supposed to be impartial to the plaintiff and the defendant. Now try sticking up for him.
I find it interesting that people who partake of the currently trendy 'America-Bashing', have no ability to be objective, and look for something negative in anything and everything. Maybe its time for those of you to stop taking yourselves so seriously. Its a tad ridiculous that you place yourself in such a position as if you are directly affected by anything that America does. Chances are, you wake up, go to school or work, hang out with friends, go on dates, all without ever feeling the 'impact' of whatever it is you feel America is doing that makes you hate. The best part is that most of you don't even know WHY those people bash on America, and just go along with it like those silly students you see at war protests, there, merely to ditch school. Yeah, go listen to their comments then consider the 'side' you want to be on. Thats why I chose the word 'hate', because just like any prejudice, you arbitrarily hate America with no real understanding or reason for why you feel the way you do.
Look at it this way...step outside yourself for a second, and see how you're behaving, and then look at us(the US). We just sit here and nod while you attack and deride over and over again. Its clear who the bigger 'man' is.
The judges words were eloquent and poignant, and in light of the fact that he's speaking to someone who would kill a plane full of innocent people, the fact that you have anything negative to say about it, doesn't say much for your character as a human being.
Look at it this way...step outside yourself for a second, and see how you're behaving, and then look at us(the US). We just sit here and nod while you attack and deride over and over again. Its clear who the bigger 'man' is.
The judges words were eloquent and poignant, and in light of the fact that he's speaking to someone who would kill a plane full of innocent people, the fact that you have anything negative to say about it, doesn't say much for your character as a human being.
Hang on here.
I'm not being Ant-American in any way here.
I'm just saying that I find it highly inappropiate that this judge should be spouting out some bullshit drama speech during a verdict reading. His job is to give justice, not to tell us how patriotic he's feeling.
I'm not being Ant-American in any way here.
I'm just saying that I find it highly inappropiate that this judge should be spouting out some bullshit drama speech during a verdict reading. His job is to give justice, not to tell us how patriotic he's feeling.
ExtremeRyno wrote:I don't really represent the views that I've written here in this thread... I just like to type.
I didn't quote anyone, as I directed that globally to whomever fits the category. If you're not one of those people then that post isn't for you. 
Since the jury passed judgement and Reid was sentenced, there wasn't anything inappropriate about it, and it certainly wasn't bullshit. Why would those words offend you? Thats silly. Its clear that terrorists are exclusively seeking out to destroy Westerners, primarily Americans, and that we are indeed not going to take THEIR bullshit.
Thats the only bullshit here bro.
Cheers
Since the jury passed judgement and Reid was sentenced, there wasn't anything inappropriate about it, and it certainly wasn't bullshit. Why would those words offend you? Thats silly. Its clear that terrorists are exclusively seeking out to destroy Westerners, primarily Americans, and that we are indeed not going to take THEIR bullshit.
Thats the only bullshit here bro.
Cheers
-
Kashluk
What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
- depends on which side of the conflict you are.
----
Yeah, I'm not calling Reid a hero or anything, just annoyed with using the word "terrorist" for every retarded fuckhead around. "OMG YOU STOLE A CANDYBAR, YOU LITTLE TERRORIST, YOU!"
- depends on which side of the conflict you are.
----
Yeah, I'm not calling Reid a hero or anything, just annoyed with using the word "terrorist" for every retarded fuckhead around. "OMG YOU STOLE A CANDYBAR, YOU LITTLE TERRORIST, YOU!"
Calling him a terrorist is a compliment, he looks like a fucking hairy mutant. The guy probably has never been laid in his life either.Kashluk wrote:What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
- depends on which side of the conflict you are.
----
Yeah, I'm not calling Reid a hero or anything, just annoyed with using the word "terrorist" for every retarded fuckhead around. "OMG YOU STOLE A CANDYBAR, YOU LITTLE TERRORIST, YOU!"
Freedom fighters kill innocents now?
Terrorism does NOT equal freedom fighter. Doubly so, these Jihadists, for the sake of Allah, forsake the teachings of refraining from violence on innocents, women and children, yet they do it over and over again. They care not for their religion, and this is fact...IF they TRULY cared and believed in said teachings, they would FEAR the wrath of divine reprisal for what they do.
Terrorism does NOT equal freedom fighter. Doubly so, these Jihadists, for the sake of Allah, forsake the teachings of refraining from violence on innocents, women and children, yet they do it over and over again. They care not for their religion, and this is fact...IF they TRULY cared and believed in said teachings, they would FEAR the wrath of divine reprisal for what they do.
-
Kashluk
Terrorism = The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments
Freedom fighter = One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government
As far as I know, governments and societies are people and property. What else is there, except maybe territory (which can be counted in the property-part)? And as we all know, adjectives such as "oppressive" are very relative and depending on the point of view.
---
It's usually the rebellion calling themselves freedom fighters and the government calling them terrorists. I bet American revolutioners were annoying little terrorists ruining tea parties in British eyes
Freedom fighter = One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government
As far as I know, governments and societies are people and property. What else is there, except maybe territory (which can be counted in the property-part)? And as we all know, adjectives such as "oppressive" are very relative and depending on the point of view.
---
It's usually the rebellion calling themselves freedom fighters and the government calling them terrorists. I bet American revolutioners were annoying little terrorists ruining tea parties in British eyes
You really are a fucking moron, you know that? These people are not fighting for freedom, rather fighting an unwinnable war to make us "see things their way" religiously. An example of a freedom fighter would be people rising up against Saddam Hussein or the old Taliban. It's really cute how you can use dictionary.com to look up words, very trendy, but one thing dictionary.com leaves out is modern day interpretations of words. In my eyes, and the eyes of many a Terrorist is some brain washed mother fucker who kills innocents.
To even compare them to American revolutionaries is stupid, but being stupid is what you do best, shit bird.
To even compare them to American revolutionaries is stupid, but being stupid is what you do best, shit bird.
-
Kashluk
Did I mention Saddam Hussein or Taleban in my post? Learn to read, shit bird.
The Russian Federation calls the freedom fighters of Chechenya terrorists. Isn't that "modern day interpretations of words", eh?
It's just two sides of the same coin.
If you had an IQ higher than 12, Hammer, you would've understood that I was criticizing the use of the word "terrorist", because it's been used wrongly these days. Like with Mr. Reid here, he's a pathetic sociopath who likes making shoebombs he is NOT trying to free his country/people from oppression or anything like that.
Just because someone blows people up it doesn't directly mean he had some kinds of political or religious reasons behind it. NOR that he was trying to accomplish anything with the act, except the momentous blood&gore and sick satisfaction.
The same deal with the old saying: all hairdressers are whores, but not all whores are hairdressers.
The Russian Federation calls the freedom fighters of Chechenya terrorists. Isn't that "modern day interpretations of words", eh?
It's just two sides of the same coin.
If you had an IQ higher than 12, Hammer, you would've understood that I was criticizing the use of the word "terrorist", because it's been used wrongly these days. Like with Mr. Reid here, he's a pathetic sociopath who likes making shoebombs he is NOT trying to free his country/people from oppression or anything like that.
Just because someone blows people up it doesn't directly mean he had some kinds of political or religious reasons behind it. NOR that he was trying to accomplish anything with the act, except the momentous blood&gore and sick satisfaction.
The same deal with the old saying: all hairdressers are whores, but not all whores are hairdressers.
Listen up you damn motherfucking dumbshit assholes sons of bitches (and so on and so forth).
Let´s not confuse things. A criminal (wich I think this guy is) has no political or military agenda. Both the freedom fighter and the terrorist have. In fact a freedom fighter can be a terrorist and a terrorist is a freedom fighter. The thing is that when a person or group fights for political reasons like independence or a regime (defending or attacking) they can be termed freedom fighters. One can agree or not that the cause is just. If they use terrorist tactics like kidnapping or killing inocent civilians then they become terrorists. People using those tactics without any political agenda are only criminals.
On the point of legitimacy I can agree or not with the motive why people fight, what I can never agree with is indiscriminate killing of innocent people no matter how legitimate the cause may be (or not).
The question of who is what is subjective. It is a method of propaganda to define the adversary as a terrorist, used by many governments and groups. I prefer to use my own judgment on the subject.
Let´s not confuse things. A criminal (wich I think this guy is) has no political or military agenda. Both the freedom fighter and the terrorist have. In fact a freedom fighter can be a terrorist and a terrorist is a freedom fighter. The thing is that when a person or group fights for political reasons like independence or a regime (defending or attacking) they can be termed freedom fighters. One can agree or not that the cause is just. If they use terrorist tactics like kidnapping or killing inocent civilians then they become terrorists. People using those tactics without any political agenda are only criminals.
On the point of legitimacy I can agree or not with the motive why people fight, what I can never agree with is indiscriminate killing of innocent people no matter how legitimate the cause may be (or not).
The question of who is what is subjective. It is a method of propaganda to define the adversary as a terrorist, used by many governments and groups. I prefer to use my own judgment on the subject.
Carpe jugulum.
Yet the Chechens kill innocents and do shit like taking over events and making outlandish demands, right?The Russian Federation calls the freedom fighters of Chechenya terrorists. Isn't that "modern day interpretations of words", eh?
"LETS FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM BY SLAYING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN GOING TO A SPORTING EVENT!" (Or whatever the fuck it was)
He was in league with known terrorists, what does it matter if he is not a dictionary word for word terrorist? What you are saying absolute HAS NO FUCKING POINT IN THE ARGUMENT.If you had an IQ higher than 12, Hammer, you would've understood that I was criticizing the use of the word "terrorist", because it's been used wrongly these days. Like with Mr. Reid here, he's a pathetic sociopath who likes making shoebombs he is NOT trying to free his country/people from oppression or anything like that.
However, he was attempting to do the same thing many asshole terrorists do, kill Americans to get their half-assed point across. He is a Terrorist, dictionary.com might not consider him one but he is a terrorist, and all with an ounce of brains would agree.
*Edited JJ86
-
Kashluk
And no civilians died during the Iraqi war, right. It's war (independence war) out there, other people than soldiers get hurt too. Whatever it be a suicide bomber or an airplane bomber they're both getting the same thing done.Hammer wrote:Yet the Chechens kill innocents and do shit like taking over events and making outlandish demands, right?
So if a cat hangs around with dogs, it becomes a dog? Sure, that makes sense.He was in league with known terrorists, what does it matter if he is not a dictionary word for word terrorist? What you are saying absolute HAS NO FUCKING POINT IN THE ARGUMENT.
Again, what was his point? He was just a raving lunatic, he had no "agenda" or whatever he was just killing Americans for the sport of it. And that, my friend, I wouldn't call terrorism - rather being a total fuckup.However, he was attempting to do the same thing many asshole terrorists do, kill Americans to get their half-assed point across. He is a Terrorist, dictionary.com might not consider him one but he is a terrorist, and all with an ounce of brains would agree.
*Edited JJ86
Kashluky youre wrong now. If somebody supports terrorists then he/she/it becomes a terrorist by association. Also the killing of civilians in a war does not become automatically an act of terrorism. It´s only terrorism if it is done on purpose. A bomb that falls in a civilian area by mistake is not terrorism, but the bombing on purpose is. Intention is everything because intention has consequences.
Carpe jugulum.
